Rockets

But you do realise, don?t you, that the traffic on these roads has increased massively since the closures went in as a direct consequence of them? Simple question??do you think that is acceptable as part of the bigger goal? From your refusal to answer the question I may suspect the answer is yes?;-)

Whilst we can acknowledge the uptake in cycling are you prepared to acknowledge the huge increase in traffic and pollution on displacement routes across the area as well? That's the point of my question. Is it acceptable, as part of our focus on reducing pollution, that large numbers of our community have to live with the increased pollution caused by the measures being put in by the council? To me, that doesn't seem very fair. Are we not just robbing Peter to pay Paul?

Raeburn - as part of the plan to resolve the issue do you think it is fair to push more of that yellow brown fug from the areas within the LTN to outside people like Heartblock's home? That's the crux of this issue - not that the yellow brown fug needs to go but the inequitable negative impact of the measures the council have put in place. Also, you claim a minority of people - you know that over 60% of people in Dulwich own a car and the highest car ownership, and those with more than one car, live within the LTN area.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I am more of a carrot than a stick person so I > > would say make other modes of transport more > > attractive and convenient in tandem with making > > car journeys less convenient and you might be > onto > > something. > > What you describe here @rockets sounds remarkably > like an LTN :) Like others have said; the safe > routes are the carrot for my family - not just > Dulwich safe routes, there are more than 400 modal > filters across London now. With more, and more > protected cycle paths, it all links up. > > But going back to the original question (which got > drowned out by descriptions of posh people causing > tsunamis of traffic) assuming we all agree in > reducing car usage and emissions urgently because > we agree that climate change is real, and we agree > that active travel is a factor in this and good > for our health - how can this be achieved by > meeting the following criteria:? > > 1. urgently > 2. equitably > 3. without causing inconvenience? > 4. succeed in behaviour change > 5. cheaply (as we know councils / TfL do not have > huge budgets right now*) > > IMO > - urgently needs to be cheaply so trams and tubes > unfortunately don't fit in that they will take > years > - equitably is more time consuming but less so > than building new public transport infrastructure > - main roads need addressing but they are designed > to take more traffic so in accordance with (1) > this is the first step. Addressing main road > congestion would be more productive than being > 'anti-LTN' > - hopefully we can all agree point (3) simply > can't be met in order to achieve (4) > > @slarti I had a quick look at One Dulwich's > proposal and they want timed restrictions with > resident permits as far as I can gather. This > would cause the same displacement of through > traffic onto boundary roads - but allow a select > few to get away with zero behaviour change. That > doesn't sound very equitable. And they want to > remove modal filters which would remove the safe > routes for those switching to active travel. So I > can't see how their alternative meets the criteria > above. Assuming this is the criteria we all agree > on? > > *Some might say the council are now loaded thanks > to the fines they've raked in - so why not push > the council to use that money for more measures on > main roads? DC - I think it depends on whether you think LTNs have to close the roads to car traffic or if you think an LTN should be designed to let cars and other forms of traffic co-exist safely. I fear the council has been listening too much to those who say a safe road is a carless road and there are other way to deal with this. I refer you to the list I posted in March (I post it unedited so some references may seem out of context now) on how I think this should have been done. 1) Investment in transport infrastructure (I know this is long-term but PTAL scores are very low in Dulwich). Without public transport infrastructure you cannot expect people to get out of the car. 2) Integrated cycling infrastructure. Bikes and cars have to coexist. Make it easier for people to make modal shift but not by closing roads to through traffic as that doesn't fix anything - it makes things worse. 3) Cycling support infrastructure. Cycling cannot remain the domain of those with space to store bikes. There needs to accelerated investment in giving every household access to bike storage. Without it cycling will remain only accessible to the most wealthy. 4) Proper commitment to EV infrastructure - but I appreciate many in the cycle lobby don't want this (as demonstrated by the minutes of the meeting posted earlier in the thread). But if emissions are the problem we are tacking then tackle them. 5) Means tested road pricing. 6) Do nothing in isolation. Do a proper area-wide approach and include everyone in the debate and give equal weighting to all road users. 7) Don't put measures in place that cause more problems than they solve and divide a community. 8) Be transparent with the plans and put proper monitoring in place to determine what is working and what is not. Do not be afraid to admit that something is not working. I think the biggest failing of the council was that they were so laser focussed on waging war on cars that they lost sight of properly assessing what the issue actually is. They had a solution but they didn't know what the problem was. Only when they determine where the traffic is coming from and going to can they properly intervene to resolve the issue. Remember, the council's own report says that 68% of local trips were being done on foot or on bike so it's clear that you, me and all the others on the forum contributing to the debate from the local area aren't the major cause of the problems - yet many of us are now being forced to live with the fallout from the council's ludicrous measures.

I am more of a carrot than a stick person so I would say make other modes of transport more attractive and convenient in tandem with making car journeys less convenient and you might be onto something. This was the biggest error by the council, they became obsessed and focussed solely on attacking car use without properly understanding what the issue was and putting anything in place to facilitate anything other than minor modal shift.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Rockets said 'Let me replay your idea back to > you: imagine if the council had engaged with the > community properly and tried to implement > area-wide measures that both addressed the > challenge of car-use but also ensured a fair and > equitable outcome for everyone.' > > So how can this 'fair and equitable' outcome be > achieved without causing inconvenience and at the > same time urgently pushing behaviour change? I say > urgently because I'm assuming you are not a > climate denier @Rockets? > > I just listened to a very interesting podcast > about cognitive dissonance. Best analogy I've > heard: it's the uncomfortable feeling a smoker > would have in knowing smoking is harmful and > foolish but wanting to carry on doing it. So the > smoker will go to great lengths to justify smoking > (it keeps me thin, I'm stressed etc etc). > > Clearly it's very difficult to change people's > minds, as this thread illustrates ad infinitum. > > But if we all agree in reducing car usage and > emissions urgently and that active travel is good > for our health - how can it be done urgently, > equitably, without causing inconvenience / pushing > behaviour change? > > It seems to me One Dulwich Alliance spend far too > much time attacking Southwark Council rather than > actually suggesting any constructive solutions. I > have no idea what they actually want - do you? DC - I am most definitely not a climate denier - it is the biggest challenge the planet faces but what the council has done will not make any impact. Let me take your smoking analogy - what the council is doing is saying don't smoke outside your house, go down the road and smoke outside someone else's instead......;-) And the areas within the LTN are some of the biggest smokers in the area! Dulwich Alliance et al attack Southwark Council because everything about these LTNs has been incredibly poorly communicated, managed and executed and it is the majority of residents of Dulwich who are having to live with the negative fallout whilst a minority live with the upside.

LTN BooHoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Boo Hoo - I think what DA and One Dulwich are > > trying to do is redress the balance and give > voice > > to those members of the local community who > feel > > they are being ignored and sidelined by the > > council, their supporters and their agenda. If > the > > council had engaged in a balanced, transparent > and > > open process from the beginning then community > > members would not have felt the need to start > or > > join groups like DA and OneDulwich - they were > > born from the council repeatedly refusing to > > listen to many members of the community > choosing > > instead to seek guidance from pro-closure lobby > > and cycle groups. > > > > In the same way that you are frustrated by what > DA > > and One Dulwich are putting out there are many > who > > will be frustrated by the stats you are > quoting, > > many of which have been touted extensively by > the > > pro-closure lobby (and have since been > questioned, > > discredited or exposed as false). > > > > Also, your note highlights the challenge here. > You > > quote lots of figures for London (and I see > > councillors like CllR McAsh claiming that a > > minority of people own cars when in fact in > area > > like Dulwich, and his own constituency to which > he > > was referring, the majority own cars) and > whilst > > we live in London you really need to analyse > what > > is happening in your area. > > > > You quote the 3.8bn extra miles - did you know > > that the Dulwich area has seen a decrease in > miles > > (although the decrease wasn't as much as the > > council thought it would be)? > > > > You quote road safety - no-one will argue with > you > > that we need to get all injuries caused on the > > road down but, did you know, for example, that > > Dulwich has 50% less injuries on the roads than > > the Southwark average? This, according to the > > Southwark Council 2018 Dulwich Traffic > Management > > report (7 injuries per km of road in 3 years > for > > Southwark, compared to 3.8 in Dulwich) which > also > > sheds broader light on the folly of this LTN > > intervention by the council. > > > > Did you know, for example, that 68% of all > > internal trips within the Dulwich area were > > already being done on foot (in the majority > 65%) > > or bike (3%) in 2018? > > > > Or that Dulwich has some of the lowest PTAL > scores > > in the whole of Southwark (and the whole of > > Dulwich ranks as having poor transport links) - > > meaning that public transport is not at all > good? > > Or that Dulwich has both a young (under 16) and > > old (over 65) population (much higher than the > > rest of Southwark) which leads to more > dependency > > on cars? > > > > It's all in here from the council: > > > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Du > > > lwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf > > > > I would challenge even the most fervent > supporter > > of the LTNs not to read that council report and > > not question why the council deemed Dulwich as > > appropriate for these measures. It was clear > from > > day one what the impact of closing many of the > > routes east/west across Dulwich was going to do > to > > the surrounding roads. > > > > This line from that report is very telling: On > the > > other hand, the lower E-W public transport > > connectivity is reflected in higher numbers of > > people travelling from/to neighbouring boroughs > by > > car. > > > > So why then, has the council targeted E-W > travel > > with these closures? Surely they must have > known > > what was going to happen? > > > > And please - don't fall into the trap of > playing > > the petrol-head anti-LTN trope - we've been > there > > a lot already over the last year or so and it's > a > > little worn now. Also, the change in use of > > side-roads is not all rat-runners using sat nav > - > > far more likely is the changing use of online > > shopping and home delivery services delivering > to > > residents. > > > > Let me replay your idea back to you: imagine if > > the council had engaged with the community > > properly and tried to implement area-wide > measures > > that both addressed the challenge of car-use > but > > also ensured a fair and equitable outcome for > > everyone. We probably wouldn't be in this mess > or > > having this debate right now! ;-) > > THE STATS COME FROM THE GOVERNMENT WEB SITE. > > If you hear one thing hear this: the debate is not > about Dulwich. What government website...do please share your source....it seems to be in complete contradiction to the stats being put out by Southwark? But this is very much is about Dulwich - the implementation of LTNs in Dulwich is very much about Dulwich and the impact on the local community in Dulwich. The debate is about the impact these measures are having on other members of our community who are having to live with the negative impact of the displacement. These closures have created a displacement tsunami - every LTN ever installed has created an LTN tsunami - remember the much heralded and championed Waltham Forest LTN caused a 28% increase in traffic on a road 3.1 miles away from the outer most edge of the LTN. Of course, there is a bigger picture but you cannot behave in the way the council is behaving by creating a nirvana in some areas and a living hell in others - that is not at all fair or equitable and no bigger cause can be used to justify that.

Boo Hoo - I think what DA and One Dulwich are trying to do is redress the balance and give voice to those members of the local community who feel they are being ignored and sidelined by the council, their supporters and their agenda. If the council had engaged in a balanced, transparent and open process from the beginning then community members would not have felt the need to start or join groups like DA and OneDulwich - they were born from the council repeatedly refusing to listen to many members of the community choosing instead to seek guidance from pro-closure lobby and cycle groups. In the same way that you are frustrated by what DA and One Dulwich are putting out there are many who will be frustrated by the stats you are quoting, many of which have been touted extensively by the pro-closure lobby (and have since been questioned, discredited or exposed as false). Also, your note highlights the challenge here. You quote lots of figures for London (and I see councillors like CllR McAsh claiming that a minority of people own cars when in fact in area like Dulwich, and his own constituency to which he was referring, the majority own cars) and whilst we live in London you really need to analyse what is happening in your area. You quote the 3.8bn extra miles - did you know that the Dulwich area has seen a decrease in miles (although the decrease wasn't as much as the council thought it would be)? You quote road safety - no-one will argue with you that we need to get all injuries caused on the road down but, did you know, for example, that Dulwich has 50% less injuries on the roads than the Southwark average? This, according to the Southwark Council 2018 Dulwich Traffic Management report (7 injuries per km of road in 3 years for Southwark, compared to 3.8 in Dulwich) which also sheds broader light on the folly of this LTN intervention by the council. Did you know, for example, that 68% of all internal trips within the Dulwich area were already being done on foot (in the majority 65%) or bike (3%) in 2018? Or that Dulwich has some of the lowest PTAL scores in the whole of Southwark (and the whole of Dulwich ranks as having poor transport links) - meaning that public transport is not at all good? Or that Dulwich has both a young (under 16) and old (over 65) population (much higher than the rest of Southwark) which leads to more dependency on cars? It's all in here from the council: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Dulwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf I would challenge even the most fervent supporter of the LTNs not to read that council report and not question why the council deemed Dulwich as appropriate for these measures. It was clear from day one what the impact of closing many of the routes east/west across Dulwich was going to do to the surrounding roads. This line from that report is very telling: On the other hand, the lower E-W public transport connectivity is reflected in higher numbers of people travelling from/to neighbouring boroughs by car. So why then, has the council targeted E-W travel with these closures? Surely they must have known what was going to happen? And please - don't fall into the trap of playing the petrol-head anti-LTN trope - we've been there a lot already over the last year or so and it's a little worn now. Also, the change in use of side-roads is not all rat-runners using sat nav - far more likely is the changing use of online shopping and home delivery services delivering to residents. Let me replay your idea back to you: imagine if the council had engaged with the community properly and tried to implement area-wide measures that both addressed the challenge of car-use but also ensured a fair and equitable outcome for everyone. We probably wouldn't be in this mess or having this debate right now! ;-)

LTN BooHoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Rahx3 - do you think the "trade-offs" currently > > being experienced outside of the LTN are worth > it? > > Hand on heart do you really think what is > > happening on East Dulwich Grove, Lordship Lane > or > > any number of roads being impacted negatively > by > > the displacement is worth it? > > > > LTN Boo Hoo - I am glad you have stuck around > and > > are actually engaging in debate - too many of > your > > cohorts register for an account, fire off a few > > emails and then disappear (or maybe return to > > using their original handle...ahem....;-)) > > > > Was there a protest - I did see a few people > with > > placards but given the weight of feeling > against > > the closures I would have expected more people > to > > turn out if there was a formal protest. > > > > Just out of interest Boo Hoo - do you live > within > > the LTN area? Are we also to assume that your > > handle is a swipe at anyone who doesn't agree > with > > your view on LTNs? > > Everyone lives near or in an LTN and few are > unaffected. > > I?ve made a few comments here and have asked what > the alternative is. No one has come back with > anything that makes any sense. Foe example a > recent post suggest the modal filters should be > just a term time! How does that work? > > Why would I ?swipe? at anyone who disagrees if > they have a viable, long-term alternative solution > that fully addresses climate change, congestion, > and our health crises? > > I?m the laziest person around. I use to drive to > work (3 miles), drive to East Dulwich (2 miles) > Kings, Sainsbury?s, the garden centre and so on. > But that has now changed because I understand the > need and the benefits. If I walk or ride a > bike/scooter then people who really need to drive > will be able to. > > I?m afraid I don?t have much time for > disinformation (eg ?Dulwich has Spoken? or the > LTNs are preventing people from getting their > vaccination/ emergency services are being delayed. > This along with the entitlement that goes hand in > hand with the DA permit proposal. We ALL need to > change the way we move around this great city of > ours - not for us, for our grandchildren and their > children. > > You will say it?s not working! Oh course it?s not > working and that?s because we need to do more to > encourage modal shift and to get people to think > about alternatives eg car sharing. > > For the record I don?t know or have any cohorts > and as for sticking around I think people just get > bored because of the intractable position anti > LTNers take. This issues won?t be decided here or > on Twitter. It will be decided on policy first and > foremost and adopted policy in my view is > currently against supporting free and easy vehicle > movement. > > Come out of the darkness and into the light. We > need to reshape our environment so human-scale > movement becomes the norm, the obvious thing to > do. Big ideas are important so what?s yours? > > PS For anyone who is interested in exploring what > modal shift feels like there?s a beginner cycle > ride being organised for women, starting in the > Square to Dulwich Park and through quiet roads. > There are also commuter rides, where guides take > you via quiet routes from Dulwich to the city > and/or > Westminster. Get in touch with Joyriders.com if > interested. Boo Hoo - you make some good points and many of us have made numerous suggestions on how the council should be tackling the issues in a more equitable and less damaging way - we often see people joining the debate late saying that they see no alternatives....then some of us post alternatives and the pro-LTN lobby ignores them! ;-) The point we anti-LTNers (as you pigeon-hole us) are making is that the way the council has gone about this is causing more problems than it solves - it does nothing to deal with the issue - it just moves the problem somewhere else. There isn't an LTN in the country that hasn't created an increase in traffic on the surrounding roads. Do you think it is fair that whilst someone benefits on Court Lane that someone else loses on Lordship Lane or East Dulwich Grove. Why? Because LTNs are a blunt instrument, implemented locally (often as councillor vanity projects) and in isolation that are not part of a co-ordinated strategic plan to tackle the issues relevant to that area. Without that strategic plan they have been doomed to failure since the outset. Southwark Council, along with the various lobby groups that have jumped on the bandwagon, have said, quite rightly, that car use needs to reduce. But they have implemented LTNs in areas that, by their own admission should not be considered for LTNs (poor PTAL scores, high car ownership caused by high proportions of young and old in the local demographic). One has to ask why they ignored their own advice? Are they just taking a punt that the measures will magically work despite their own counsel that they won't? They told us give them time to bed in - we have and there is zero improvement. In fact, as life begins to return to normality so the inevitable is happening - things are getting worse. You are absolutely right that we all need to make changes but LTNs don't help everyone - they help those who are within the LTN areas to make modal shift (and my personal criticism is that it is all well and good for the council to encourage model shift in areas where people own large houses and side-returns but they are doing nothing to deliver infrastructure to those not in that position). Let me ask you this - do you believe that the LTNs have caused displacement and, if so, what are your suggested solutions to manage that so that everyone can benefit? I have asked this of many pro-LTN supporters and their answers are always, inevitably, the same - more LTNs. You may have no time for what you refer to as disinformation (and I agree that there is a lot of hyperbole employed as people try to make their point) but what a lot of those not supportive of LTNs are tired of is the way that pro-supporters and lobbyists steadfastly refuse to admit that the LTNs are causing any problems. Whilst you plead for people to come out of the darkness into the light what many of us want is for the pro-closure lobby to come and meet us halfway - find a solution that is not only good for them but good for people at the end of their road too. Otherwise the blinkered approach by the pro-LTN lobby runs the real risk of setting the climate debate back years. It's time to admit they are not working and to find an equitable solution that benefits all.

Burbage Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But 22,500 drivers have not missed a two 20mph > > signs in a 6 week period. You have to admit > that > > those numbers suggest that something isn't > > working. > > The RAC's Report on Motoring 2020, contains this: > > "On roads with a 20mph limit, compliance is also > improving with nearly four in 10 (39%) admitting > to speeding, down > from 44% last year" > > and > > "Meanwhile, 11% of limit-breakers have driven > above 40mph in a 30mph zone while 10% have > exceeded 30mph in a 20mph zone. In the case of the > latter, 45% of those who speed at least > occasionally say this is because they believe the > limit is ?inappropriate? for the area or stretch > of road in question." > > I think that tells us exactly what's not working. Burbage - you seem to be missing the point.....I don't think there is a 20 mph speed camera anywhere in the country that has issued 22,500 fines in such a short period of time. No one is suggesting that speeding is not a problem - we are suggesting that the bus gates are inappropriately and inadequately signposted which is resulting in many people getting fines (not because of the wilful ignoring of said signs but because they have no idea there are any restrictions in place.

Rahx3 - do you think the "trade-offs" currently being experienced outside of the LTN are worth it? Hand on heart do you really think what is happening on East Dulwich Grove, Lordship Lane or any number of roads being impacted negatively by the displacement is worth it? LTN Boo Hoo - I am glad you have stuck around and are actually engaging in debate - too many of your cohorts register for an account, fire off a few emails and then disappear (or maybe return to using their original handle...ahem....;-)) Was there a protest - I did see a few people with placards but given the weight of feeling against the closures I would have expected more people to turn out if there was a formal protest. Just out of interest Boo Hoo - do you live within the LTN area? Are we also to assume that your handle is a swipe at anyone who doesn't agree with your view on LTNs?

Underhill has been awful since the closures went in as people try to find a way around the queuing traffic at the junction of Lordship Lane and the A205. Has anyone seen any monitoring strips on Underhill? There seems to be two sets on each of roads like Woodwarde and Court Lane.

Slarti - you hit the nail on the head - Southwark's own report completely undermines the decision to implement LTNs in Dulwich. Dulwich was already way ahead of the borough norm for active travel so you have to ask whether there needed to be such a radical LTN intervention and then that naturally leads you to ask what the real motivation for doing so was and who they were pandering to. Rahrahrah - 20% of car journeys started and finished in the area, there were an additional 7% where people were a passenger (that is an important distinction). Given the high proportion of people under 19 (25%) and over 65 (10%) in the area does 20% seem that high to you? If the council had done proper analysis they would have concluded that the LTNs would have little beneficial impact on car usage in the area because I bet a large proportion of that 20% is "essential" or cannot be done in another way. Pretty much everything in that report massively undermines the position taken by the council in relation to LTNs.

Rahrahrah - but no one is saying that short car journeys are a good thing and the report doesn't demonstrate that is happening. Quite the opposite in fact. The report is a ringing endorsement of the fact that the LTNs were a really, really bad idea. A bad idea that has been even more poorly implemented. What the report does clearly show is that the LTNs were a sledge-hammer to crack a nut and the council didn't have the first clue what type of nut they were trying to crack. I am not sure they even had a nut to crack - they just wanted to hit something with a sledge-hammer.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Spartacus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Quoting a figure of 40% for a whole borough is > > misleading when it comes to local Dulwich > issues. > > Presumably people in Dulwich travel within the > Borough more generally though? It's only around 11 > miles square. Or perhaps they're just driving > around Dulwich? Nope. Appears most folks from Dulwich are walking around it...and this report was from 2018... Trips starting and ending in Dulwich have been analysed separately. Figure 2.5 shows that shopping and leisure trips account for a significant part of the total, while work-related internal trips are very limited Almost 2/3 of all internal trips surveyed are undertaken on foot. It is also worth noting that the cycle mode share is very limited, even for short distance trips. Similarly, the share of bus trips is very low. The low attractiveness of bus for short trips could potentially be explained by localised congestion or the benefit perceived in waiting and riding the bus compared to walking

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Dulwich car ownership is at over 60% in the > > Dulwich area - driven (no pun intended) by the > > larger percentage than other boroughs of those > > under-19 and those over 65 and the poor public > > transport links in the area. > > > > It's all in here: > > > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Du > > > lwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf > > > > > > Which, when you read it, makes the decision to > > puts LTNs even more baffling. > > This report you've linked to makes the case for > LTNS IMO. 27% of trips starting and ending in > Dulwich are made by car?! Some of those trips will > be necessary. A lot won't be. But it doesn't make the case for LTNs quite the opposite in fact. The council doesn't like the existence of this report because it is a smoking gun demonstrating that they knew the closures would lead to one thing only - and that was massive congestion as there is not the public transport infrastructure to support East/West travel - so why go and throttle it further - it makes no sense at all.

Rahx3 - that's all in the report as well - although this is all journeys. Oh and look, at the end of the text below from the council's own report there's a reference to the elephant in the room - the lack of East/West public transport options which leads more people to use their car.....which, of course, they have strangled with these closures which is the root cause of the congestion problems we are seeing across the area as a result.. Again, you have to question the rationale and justification for the closures given the overwhelming data from the council's own reports - it was clear what was going to happen when the closures went in.....yet no-one from the council could see it. Three origin/destination areas have been used in the analysis: ? Southwark: including trips originating outside the three wards but within the borough ? Neighbouring Boroughs: including trips originating in those boroughs that are adjacent to the study area (Lambeth, Lewisham and Bromley) ? Non-neighbouring Boroughs: including all other areas of London As shown in Figure 2.2, work-related trips are largely longer, starting/ending in non-neighbouring boroughs. It should be noted that due to the nature of the LTDS surveys some of the inbound and outbound trips are likely to represent two legs of the same journey. Figure 2.2: Inbound/Outbound surveyed trips by purpose and by origin/destination (5-year total) Source: LTDS 2010-2015 (inbound trips sample n=263,403, outbound trips sample n=257,941) The modal split of inbound (see Figure 2.3) and outbound (see Figure 2.4) trips shows a prevalence of car/private vehicle, accounting for half of the total number of surveyed trips. Trips starting in nonneighbouring boroughs are more likely to be undertaken by public transport, with rail as the preferred mode. On the other hand, the lower E-W public transport connectivity is reflected in higher numbers of people travelling from/to neighbouring boroughs by car.

....let the children play...but not in our Square please...;-)

Raeburn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That?s exactly the right reason - to provide > better infrastructure and enable people to walk, > ride, scoot, skate. End the false construct that > driving is the answer, and reduce reliance on > vehicles for short-hop journeys? But Raeburn, to be fair, the council has said previously that you should not put these types of measures in places where PTAL scores are low and car ownership is high as they wont work i.e. Dulwich. The council can't have it both ways and what we are seeing now are the consequences of them ignoring their own advice.... Also, let me correct you it appears the council wants to encourage walking and riding but not scooting or skating given the positioning of the new planters in Margy Square.....;-) I was at the cafe at the weekend and couple of children were bemoaning the fact they could not play there anymore....

Dulwich car ownership is at over 60% in the Dulwich area - driven (no pun intended) by the larger percentage than other boroughs of those under-19 and those over 65 and the poor public transport links in the area. It's all in here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Dulwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf Which, when you read it, makes the decision to puts LTNs even more baffling.

I think a lot of our local Labour councillors are doing a fine impression of Tory councillors during this debacle.

LTN Boo Hoo: You said: An arbitration exercise is not what I?m suggesting. What I?m suggesting is a team of professional experts who can look at an area and make recommendations on how to make things better for everyone. Eg where the blockages are occurring and how to make adjustments to ease them. Surely the council should have engaged with said professional experts (if they do not have the capability internally to do this) BEFORE implementing these measures? You have registered recently but if you look back you will see that many on here were predicting exactly what has happened (in terms of negative impacts) of these measures. If people on this forum could predict what was going to happen then why could the council not - that is, after all, what they are paid to do? Anyway, to your point on making changes I don't know if anyone else is but I am hearing rumours that they are coming due to the untenable congestion being caused by these closures across Dulwich and the realisation that they are not working and causing far more issues than they solve. I suspect the council are seeing the data and from the monitoring and not liking what they are seeing. Re: Goodrich, ah so the school wasn't informed as the council went for a yellow-line land-grab again....you would have thought the council would have told the school these were in-bound....I sense some tensions between Goodrich and the council.

DC - this is another case of the Guardian's usual "the headline doesn't quite tally with the info further down the article" bias and if you read the article with a clear mind you will see why. Also, you say there is no proof of emergency services citing LTNs as delays but there is and the DV junction closure has been called out in reports from LAS - but maybe we should put that down to salience.....I hope I don't urgently need emergency service assistance that gets delayed due to salience....here lies the body of Rockets - it was salience that did for him! ;-) Let me break it down: Headline: Opponents of LTNs claim they delay emergency services ? but look at the facts Reality: LTNs aren't specifically called out by the emergency services but "traffic calming measures", which include LTNs were in a report and these rose by as much as 35% in areas with new LTNs. Guardian's defence: Data obtained from LFB by The Times not "scientifically credible" and LFB reports of delays down to salience Objective analysis: More desperate Guardian blah, blah, blah in defence of LTNs Rewrite the Guardian headline from the other side: LFB see up to 35% rises in delays caused by new traffic calming measures, including LTNs but supporters claim this is due to salience The proof: There was, however, one interesting phenomenon: the proportion of the delays put down to ?traffic calming measures? ? the metric that covers LTNs ? rose, particularly when newer LTNs had been built. The authors argue that this seemed largely down to the academic phenomenon known as ?salience?: the fact that some things are just more memorable than others. Hence, a crew having to detour round a new set of bollards are much more likely to note this in their report than, for example, being held up by traffic. The corollary to the Waltham Forest report is a news story in the Times last month, which used the extensive LFB data to argue that LTNs did appear to be a problem, citing the fact that delays attributed to ?traffic calming measures? rose much more steeply in boroughs with new LTNs than those without ? by 35% as against 2.8%. While superficially notable, the article is not academically credible, for several reasons. One is the impact of salience on the results. Another is that London boroughs are big and complex places, and there was no attempt made to account for the many other factors that could be involved ? not least the very different traffic patterns of lockdown.

This does look like a very deliberate move to stop the kids skating there - it's pretty shameful to be honest given they are so desperate to create modal shift....but to only certain types it appears.

Ah ha - they've put the planters there to stop the kids from using it as a skate and scooter park.....it seems that skaters are not part of their plans for use of the "Square"! The killjoys....